What is it about animation that moves us so much? Why do I love one scene in a movie and feel less strongly about the next? What is it about the animation of those scenes that speaks to me, and how can I incorporate those things into my work?

Some time ago I decided I’d try to boil down my process into a simple set of broad principles. And while these aren’t as specific as the fabled 12 or 20 or however however many principles from whatever list you subscribe to, I feel that for myself, they’re a pretty good start at understanding what I look for in animation. Everyone needs their own set of criteria; these are mine. It’s by no means a complete list, but anything else I can think up thus far I’ve found I can slip under one of these umbrella categories.

My five in order of importance, least to greatest (at this point in my education anyway):

DESIGN — or perhaps another word for appeal. I hate putting this guy at the bottom of the list, really I do. But in the shower this morning I decided that’s just how the cookie crumbles. Imbuing a character’s image or motion with a solid sense of graphic design, making it appealing, is no doubt of great importance. It makes the scene easy on the eyes and intriguing to look at. It’s also one of the hardest things to put your finger on in any graphic medium. What makes a Milt Kahl drawing so damned appealing? You can go into lengthy mathematical discussions about proportion, straights against curves, arcs and arrows, you name it. But I defy anyone to come up with a formula that explains how to draw (or pose) appealing dogs, or apes, or puppets, the way Milt, or any other great animator can. As important as design is though, it comes in behind:

PHYSICALITY — The audience’s belief that a character lives and breathes starts in the belief that a character moves right. Every great animated film or scene conveys a set of rules that govern the characters and objects which reside within it. The world of My Neighbor Totoro has different rules than Pinnochio’s, which has different rules than that of The Incredibles. But each film’s characters move and behave in a way that’s consistent with their peers. This is not to say they all move the same (cardinal sin, if you ask me), but that in their own way they obey the rules of the same world. It’s important, no doubt. But not most important. Next up is:

ENTERTAINMENT — Even if an animated character lacks a sophistication in design or a sense of weight in his surroundings, you can get away with it if it’s entertaining. It’s another hard one that’s hard to explain in simple formulas. And one that many artists and studios are only too often seduced by. These scenes and films seem to cry out, “love me! I’m gonna entertain you!” You know the animation I’m talking about. The stuff that leaves a sour taste in your mouth, and a sense in your gut that you’ve been taken advantage of. Nevertheless, a scene that’s entertaining will linger in one’s memory longer than the next. That’s important, and not just to your reel, but to the audience’s sense of satisfaction after having sat through your film. The right balance is key. Pick your battles, but do not under any circumstances allow it to supersede:

CHARACTER — The illusion of life, as it were. And only #2 on the list? Sit tight. By this I mean, are the thoughts going through your character’s head consistent with their place on that character’s arc in the film? If I, the audience can’t make out what exactly is going on in that character’s head, and understand why he or she feels that way, forget it. You’ve lost me. Will an impartial audience member be shaken out of their suspension of disbelief by your scene? Are you substituting cliche for subtext? This is the point where “entertainment” will start to elbow its way to center stage if you let it. It’s so tempting to squeeze as much out of a scene as you can, but you cannot let it get in the way of your character’s clear, rational thought process, and you certainly can’t let it interrupt numero uno:

STORY — no surprises there. The single most important criterion that you must not let suffer under any circumstances. More important than any character’s consistency, more important than any scene’s entertainment value or appeal, if you fail to convey the story point of a scene, you fail to tell the story. And that’s really what this medium is all about: telling a relevant story that will affect an audience. It’s the whole reason animation and indeed movies themselves were invented in the first place. An audience must be able to follow the story. And this is where showing your animation to your peers is vital. You can find ten different people that will give you ten different opinions on your animation’s appeal, but if half of them can’t understand what’s going on, you’ve got a problem on your hands.

So I’m sure many of you disagree with the set of criteria here, and probably with the order of importance I’ve decided upon, but hey, that’s what the comments section’s for! Happy animating….

While I totally agree that Story is undoubtedly the most important part of a film, I don’t feel like it quite fits in with the other items as a principle of animation. While the other principles can be exercised by almost any animator from an student/independent animator to one staffed by a big studio, doing 50 or so seconds worth of shots for a feature film, story is really up to the heads of a given film, and thus something a lot of animators don’t have total control of. Also, you’re assuming that everyone is doing a narrative, story-driven animated film, when it’s pretty clear that animation is capable of visualizing virtually any idea someone may have.

I think what would be more appropriate in place of Story is Clarity: getting across what you’re trying to show/tell the audience in a way that’s coherent and direct, where there’s a clear progression from one thing to the next. Most animators need to know the fundamentals of things like weight and timing, but EVERY animator needs to know staging and silhouettes.

Nathan Jones

Thanks for reminding us in a very simple and concise manner, sometimes its the simplest thing which is so easy to remember !

June 16, 2008 @ 7:13 am

Dr. Hathaway

Re: Graham. Both photos are pre-beard. =P

Re: Stephen. I agree, but I suppose I would argue that everything you’re talking about — clarity, staging, animation just plain reading — would in fact fall under story. I’m not saying I as an animator at pixar (ie. huge studio) am making calls about whether the character should do this or that or the other in each scene, but it IS my job to make sure whatever the character is supposed to be doing reads. So perhaps “clarity” would be a more appropriate word in one sense, but to me “story” carries a stronger connotation.

And you’re right, I’m pretty biased toward narrative “character” animation, since to me cinema is an inherently communicative art form. I can’t call a film a failure if it doesn’t present some kind of character or drama I can follow and relate to, but I’m not going to spend two hours of my life sitting through it. Of course, whether or not one finds a film compelling is totally up to the viewer, so I’m not saying anyone should like this and not like that. But a film’s got to be pretty darned interesting, and not just in a graphic sense, to keep my attention these days.

Thanks for the discussion!

June 16, 2008 @ 10:40 am

shiyoon

Hi Travis,

Is it harder for you to get appeal in 3d then in hand drawn? As awesome as 3d medium is, I still feel it has a lot to grow in this area when compared with those Milt drawings that you posted..

and do you still think it’s important to be able to draw well even though you are a CG animator? I feel that a lot of CG students mostly focus on physicality and entertainment.. but lack appeal~ possibly because they’ve been using simple guy gigs all the time in school.. but when given a appealing complicated character… they dunno how to push it in terms of appeal because they haven’t been drawing!

June 17, 2008 @ 10:25 pm

shiyoon

It’s interesting because from reading what his colleagues had to say, you get the feeling that (during the later years), Milt was putting Character as tops, followed by Design, and then Story. As a result, Medusa as an example, is a distinctive character, is superbly drawn, but can feel isolated from everything else in the Rescuers universe.

Interesting stuff, well explained too.
I believe that there is place for an endless debate about the top three categories. Especially the vague Entertainment category because it applies to both Story and Character: interesting story and interesting acting. I guess the only way I can say which is more important than the previous is by paying attention to what my intentions are in the scene, tell a good story, convey a message or simply make good acting.

But hey! There’s no wrong opinion right?
Thanks a lot.

June 18, 2008 @ 9:07 pm

Dr. Hathaway

Shiyoon, I think you could look at that both ways. Certainly the ability to push a model as far as say, a Milt pose, without breaking it is beginning to be widely available to studio animators. (Look at Kung Fu Panda — more attention is being paid to appeal and it shows; that film is gorgeous.) But I too believe we’re not *quite* there yet. So you could say it’s easier to squeeze appeal out of a drawing than a cg character on some level.

But for me, though I was classically trained, my drawing skills were never great enough to get the acting and appeal I had in my head across. But my *sense* of design I totally credit to Calarts and continued art and cinema “education” in general. Whatever the medium, you’re still composing for a 2d screen; the principles are all the same. So if I’ve got an appealing model to begin with, like Remy or Ego or Presto, chances are I’ll be able to come up with something more appealing than if I tried to draw it. With cg I’m simply building on a great design that some great designer already built.

But I do agree that more students ought to be educated in art history and to watch movies as often as possible, not just animated films but live action too. See how filmmakers or other artists solve design problems and learn from them. Not to copy the answers as a shortcut, but to learn from the thought behind the answers. I see too many stock gestures and poses in animation these days. When in doubt people fall back on what’s comfortable. Certainly I’m guilty of this at times. So never stop learning from life and from people who’ve figured it out. And watching great animation is only the half of it; those old guys got their inspiration from somewhere too! Go to the source.

Thanks Dr.H, for your words of wisdom and reminders. Out of curiosity, what scenes in Pixar films would you say in your personal opinion embodies best those 5 principles you talked about. Given they’re all pretty darn good, what are the creme de la creme ones that stick out in your mind specifically?

Thanks and keep enlightening us all!

June 28, 2008 @ 6:42 am

Jorge

Sorry ..I can`t see the full article…I just can see until the 8th paragraph… why it happen??..someone help me??

September 11, 2008 @ 5:01 pm

Alexwebmaster

Hello webmaster
I would like to share with you a link to your site
write me here preonrelt@mail.ru